Air Raid Precautions Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

I beg to move the Second Reading of the Air Raid Precautions Bill, 1939. The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for precautions to protect persons and property in the event of attack from the air. The precautions are, of course, in the nature of passive defence measures as distinct from the active defence which is the responsibility of the Army. In time of emergency the members of the civil population generally, in areas subject to air attack, would naturally use every effort to protect themselves from the results of such attack. Any steps initiated when an emergency occurred could not hope to have the desired results, and it is only by organising in advance that the maximum of protection can be obtained. Deputies are aware from previous discussions in this House of the general nature of the plans which it is proposed should be followed. The object of the Bill is to enable these plans to be carried out. I do not propose at this stage to go into a detailed exposition of the numerous clauses of the Bill but I shall take the various Parts into which the Bill is divided and explain the principles which are being followed in framing their provisions.

Part I is general in character, and includes definitions, matters relating to procedure, and a financial clause to empower the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to incur expenses for the administration of the Act.

Part II relates to the duties of local authorities with reference to the preparation and carrying out of schemes, and their responsibilities regarding public air-raid shelters and evacuation. This Part requires that certain local bodies shall prepare and submit air raid precautions schemes for the approval of the Minister for Defence. It is proposed to make a beginning with the cities of Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick, and the urban areas of Bray, Cobh, Drogheda, Dundalk, Dun Laoghaire and Wexford. It is intended that in these places schemes of a fairly intensive nature should be organised. The schemes to be organised by the council of a county will be more or less of a nucleus type. The Minister will have power to revoke or amend any scheme and he may by order remove any urban area from the schedule or add to it from time to time such districts as he may consider necessary.

This part also gives local authorities powers which will be valuable to them in expediting their preparations. It will enable them to acquire land compulsorily, if necessary, for the purpose of their schemes. It also gives them power to earmark in advance buildings or parts of buildings for use as public shelters, and authorises them to enter upon such premises to do necessary preliminary work. The Bill provides for appeal to the Minister against a decision by the local authority to earmark or designate particular premises. The grounds of appeal are limited to two. First, that the premises are required for other purposes of public importance; or, secondly, that they are required for use as a private air-raid shelter. The Bill further provides that when a building or part of a building has been strengthened or adapted for the purpose of an air-raid shelter in times of emergency, the owner shall not interfere with the work that has been done without first obtaining the consent of the local authority. It is provided that if the local authority refuses or neglects to consent within a period of six weeks, an appeal shall lie to the Minister. Section 24 contains provisions with regard to compensation to be paid in respect of the period while work is being executed, and for any loss directly suffered through interference with the premises. It provides further that if, after the work has been carried out, the normal utility of the premises has been impaired, there shall be a continuing payment of the compensation based upon the degree of impairment of the utility. Power is taken in Clause 27 to enable the local authority to take possession of designated premises in the event of emergency and compensation in respect of such premises would be paid as the Oireachtas might determine.

The miscellaneous provisions of Part II require (Section 28) that local authorities and other officers shall assist in arrangements for evacuation of the civil population from one area to another in the event of attack from the air. Plans are at present being drawn up to facilitate the voluntary evacuation of certain non-essential categories of the population of Dublin should such a course ever be necessary.

In the event of a local authority failing to discharge its functions under the Act, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may dissolve such authority.

The financial provisions of Part II provide for the refund in accordance with regulations of a proportion, not exceeding 70 per cent., of the expenses of local authorities on air-raid precautions schemes generally. In the event of any land acquired for air-raid precautions purposes no longer being needed for such purposes, the Minister may require repayment by the local authority of a sum not exceeding the amount of the grant made by him in respect of the acquisition of the land.

Part III is concerned with the powers and duties of essential undertakers, that is to say, persons (other than State Departments) authorised by law to construct and operate a railway, canal, dock, harbour, tramway, water, gas, electricity or other public undertaking, and also any person declared by an order made by the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to be an essential undertaker for the purposes of this Act.

In general, the position of these undertakers in regard to the organisation of domestic air-raid precautions schemes is the same as for other classes of employers. Employers in the special areas where intensive schemes will be organised by the local authority will be expected to establish their own domestic services for warning, first-aid, fire-fighting, decontamination, rescue and demolition. It will be observed in this connection that Section 58 provides for the payment of State grants in respect of the provision of air-raid shelter for employees in the special areas. It is not, however, now proposed that employers should be bound by statute to organise domestic air-raid precautions schemes.

This part of the Bill contains provision requiring essential undertakers to prepare and carry out schemes to ensure the continuance of the services carried on by them. These undertakers will also, where necessary, e.g., in the case of transport companies, be bound to furnish to the Minister such information as he may require for the purpose of assisting the preparation of arrangements for evacuation of civil population. As in the case of local authorities, essential undertakers are empowered to acquire land for the purpose of their air-raid precautions schemes. Section 46 provides for the payment of grants not exceeding 50 per cent. of approved expenditure on air-raid precautions schemes carried out by such undertakers.

There is also provision for the repayment by essential undertakers of State grants in respect of land acquired for the purpose of air raid precautions schemes and which may no longer be required for such purposes. Grants may be paid in respect of approved expenditure incurred any time after the 30th day of September, 1938.

Part IV of the Bill deals with the questions of the obscuration of lights and camouflage in the cases of occupiers of factories, owners of mines and essential undertakers. Here again it is necessary that anticipatory measures should be taken. This Bill, of course, deals with the preparations to be made against a time of emergency and does not generally contain provisions that would be incorporated in legislation to deal with a state of emergency once it had arisen. It may be pointed out that under conditions applicable to a state of war drastic regulations would be applied in regard to the obscuration of light in certain localities. If such regulations are to be effective, without involving a very serious loss of industrial efficiency, it is important that industrial undertakings should make provision in advance for doing what will have to be done in the way of the obscuration of lights on the occurrence of emergency conditions. This part of the Bill, therefore, provides that, when advised accordingly by the Minister, factories, industrial premises and essential undertakings will be so dealt with that the external lighting can be entirely obscured and the internal lighting can be screened. This part of the Bill also covers the taking of the necessary action with regard to any process involving the emission of flames or glare. Provision is made in this part for the payment of grants not exceeding half of the approved capital expenditure involved in taking the necessary steps to meet the requirements of the Minister. Section 53 provides penalties in the case of any person who fails to comply with requirements. Grants will not be paid of course under Part III in respect of expenditure incurred on which grants are paid under Part IV. Powers are taken in Section 55 enabling authorised officers to enter premises at all reasonable hours to ensure that the requirements of the Minister are complied with, and subsection (5) of the same section provides for a penalty in the case of any officer who discloses any information regarding a manufacturing process or trade secret which he has obtained in the course of his duty under the section.

Part V includes a number of provisions some of which are of general application. Reference has been made above to Section 58, which covers the payment of State grants to persons in the special areas who incur expenses of a capital nature in providing approved air-raid shelters for persons employed by them. The grant would be an amount in the £ equal to the standard rate of income-tax for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1939. It would be a condition that the shelter should have been provided before the 1st January, 1940, or such later date to be determined by the Minister, or the work on the shelter should have been begun by the 31st day of December, 1939, and the Minister should be satisfied that the shelter will be provided within a reasonable time thereafter. The provisions as to payment of grant to employers in respect of the air-raid shelters will not apply to a building wholly or mainly occupied as a school, college, hotel, restaurant, club, etc. Provision is made in Section 59 for the relief from rates of certain works undertaken with a view to affording air-raid shelter. It might here be mentioned that the Minister for Finance has agreed to include in the Finance Bill provisions for the relief of air raid precautions works from income-tax under Schedule A.

Section 60 in Part V enables the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, to provide such services, train such persons and acquire such air raid precautions equipment as he considers necessary for the purposes of affording protection to persons and property in the event of attack from the air, and to lend, supply free of charge, or to sell such equipment. Regulations will be made under the Act relating to the loan, supply, sale and storage of equipment and a penalty is provided in Section 62 in the case of any person who wilfully damages any equipment which is lent or supplied to him free under the Act, or which he has under his control for the purposes of the Act. Section 63 enables the Minister to regulate, including prohibit, the importation or sale of any article of air raid precautions equipment as may be specified in an order by the Minister. Penalties are provided for infringement of regulations made in this matter. In Section 64 it is provided that the Minister for Finance may make a scheme providing for the payment of compensation to persons who may suffer injuries sustained in the course of air raid precautions training.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Minister very clearly told us the contents of this Bill, but one would expect, and would be entitled to expect, that, on the introduction of a Bill containing the very drastic powers which this Bill contains, and of the unusual novelty of this Bill in a country such as this, the Parliament and the people outside would listen to a case for the Bill and would hear some reasons or arguments as to why a Bill so far-reaching in importance is required. I take it, from a study of this Bill, that if it is seriously grasped and implemented by the country, it will be a drastically expensive measure—a Bill imposing a huge new cost on every administrative area in the country. In dealing with a subject such as air-raid precautions, one of the very big difficulties in this country is to convince 90 per cent. of the people that there is any necessity for such a measure. The Minister must know as well as I do that nine out of every ten people scoff at the idea of there being any danger to the people of this country from the skies. That is true, irrespective of where the people live. I think I am entitled to assume that, from the point of view of danger from the air, the most obvious target and the most vulnerable point is the City of Dublin. What I say with regard to the people generally is equally true with regard to the people living in the City of Dublin. It may be argued that a higher percentage of people living in the rural areas scoff at the idea of any danger from the skies, but there is no denying that nine out of every ten Dublin people regard all this A.R.P. work as a desire merely to be in the fashion, to keep in step with European countries because it is the European fashion. They do not realise or appreciate that, in certain areas, there may be real danger.

I, for one, consider that it is the very first function and the first responsibility of anybody sponsoring a measure such as this to attempt, at least, to convince 90 per cent. of the people who are unbelievers at the moment that there is real danger in the air—real danger to themselves, to their neighbours or to their property. The first function of the Minister should have been to endeavour to make a case to justify such a costly Bill and such a novel piece of legislation.

I have always found that, when it comes to information, a fully-grown oyster is noisy as compared with the Minister for Defence. He will tell us what we can read but, when it comes to getting any information as to why a particular proposal or a particular Bill is required, there is a definite close-down. I do not know about other Parties in this House, but I do know that the main Opposition Party has no information with regard to the European situation or the dangers that may be coming to this country except what is contained in the newspapers. If we are to judge by the newspapers, then there is every indication—judging solely by the newspapers—that the danger that appeared very near a couple of months ago is, at least, more remote. Yet, we went through two years of intense tension and, evidently, judging from the newspapers, acute and imminent danger and we had nothing of this kind. When the average man believes he is getting out of the wood, without any case being made or any reason being given for it, we have a Bill of this kind introduced and we have every local authority being asked to face up to immense new expenditure to meet a situation which, as I have said, 90 per cent. of them or their people do not believe really exists.

I belong to the 10 per cent. I find very few to agree with me. I am one of the small minority that believes that, through one cause or another, in the future, Ireland cannot expect, as she did in the past, to live absolutely remote and detached from and untouched by any European conflagration. I believe that this country has been brought hundreds of miles nearer to the centre of Europe by the increased rapidity of transport and, particularly, by the development of the aeroplane. As a believer in the possibility, at least, of danger to this country at certain points and in certain circumstances, I am, certainly, not an advocate of the suggestion contained in this Bill, that all Ireland— capital, coast and interior country— is in danger.

I believe that any schoolboy learning geography, tracing out miles on a map and knowing what appears to be the maximum range of aeroplanes, could point out the vulnerable points in this country, and the points of the country that appear, at least, to be outside the range of attack. Any student of economics or production could certainly point out the worth-while points of this country for any enemy to attack, but, as far as I understand this Bill, it is a Bill that makes certain conditions equally compulsory on every administrative authority in the country, with the exception of certain non-scheduled urban authorities. Every county council is equally a scheme-making or a scheme-forming authority for the purposes of this Bill. There is equal responsibility on every county council to produce and formulate a scheme for the Minister's approval, quite aside from whether that administrative council is far in the interior or is in what appears to some to be a danger point on the coast.

Now, in the main, this is a new tax ing Bill, and a new taxing Bill of very considerable importance—the costs entirely unknown, no effort being made by the Minister to give anybody any idea of the cost to any administrative area, whether one of those that appeared to be vulnerable or those that appear to be in the zone of safety. But at least one thing is apparent from the Bill and from the study of the handbooks issued by the Minister's Department, that it is going to be an immensely costly Bill on any administrative area if taken seriously by the authority in that administrative area. Of course, if it is taken lightly, if it is regarded merely as a bit of window dressing, then it is not going to be costly; but if any county council believes this Bill should be taken seriously, it is going to be very expensive on that particular administrative unit.

My attitude to this particular Bill is that a Bill something on these lines is required in certain areas, that it would be highly desirable in certain areas, and that, instead of including the whole country in the Bill, and then possibly excluding areas by bits, if the Bill worked the other way there would not be such a reaction against it. If the Minister took power to apply it to one administrative area after the other, by a Resolution of this House, and after making a case for applying it to that area, then I think, with far less opposition from the electors outside, you would get it to apply in the areas where it is required and leave alone the areas where it is not required.

The financial principle upon which this Bill is based is of course the principle adopted in the British Act—that is, that the taxpayer pays a portion and the ratepayer pays a portion. The only thing that is guaranteed by the Bill is that the ratepayer or the rates will pay a minimum of 30 per cent. of whatever expenditure is incurred in a particular area. Let us take it that the greater expenditure will take place in the areas of greater vulnerability. I think that principle, that people in the danger zone should be mulcted most heavily financially, is entirely wrong. I think further that the differentiation between the ratepayer and the taxpayer, in this country at least, is entirely indefensible. Every ratepayer is a taxpayer but every taxpayer is not a ratepayer. I think many of the wealthiest of our taxpayers are not ratepayers at all. The modern trend for the extremely wealthy, for the retired business magnate, for the man who has his family off his hands and who has retired on his money, is to live in a suite in a hotel. He is a taxpayer but he is not a ratepayer and what you are ensuring in this Bill is that the poorest man, living in a house, pays on the double while the wealthiest man, living in a flat in a hotel, pays only on the single. There may or may not have been a sound case for such a principle in Great Britain. There is no reason why we should slavishly follow that Act in every particular. One of the important principles in the Bill is that differentiation between the ratepayer and the taxpayer, and the Minister was as silent on that as he was on everything that appears to be of importance in connection with the Bill.

I should like to be strongly supporting a Bill of this kind with conscience behind me. I should like, if there is danger in this country of universal application, to be convinced by a person who is in a better position to know than the rest of us that that danger is there. But yet we are asked to faceup to our responsibilities in this irresponsible way, that merely because we are asked to spend money on behalf of the people and out of the people's pockets, we are to say "yes" without any case being made. I am painfully conscious of the fact that those days are gone by, and the quicker the Minister faces up to that fact the better, that the day has gone by when any Minister, no matter how many slaves he can count behind him, can walk in here and without making a case at all, confidently rely on the bell ringing, the votes being counted and the money being forthcoming. That day has gone by. At some point, sooner or later before the Bill is passed, the Minister will have seriously to face up to the fact that there are Deputies in this House, sitting behind him as well as in front of him, who are not at all convinced of the necessity for a Bill of this kind and particularly for the universal application of such a Bill, that they want to know more about the cost of it and they want to know a lot more in justification of the proposed incidence of that cost, be it large or small.

Public estimates tell us very little. If we are to go by the figure shown in the public estimates, then we are to take it that three times as much was spent, or proposed to be spent, last year as this year. If we are to go by the figure contained in the public estimates, then we could not possibly take this Bill seriously. I take it that the figure is merely a token vote. I think I have a recollection of the Minister telling us that it was a token vote. I could quite understand that there was a situation which had to be explored, but one would imagine that we would get some idea at least of the cost of the Bill.

The Minister, in the course of his remarks, told us that on a previous occasion, not defined, he had gone in detail fully into this. As far as I have any recollection of the matter, what happened was that the Minister utilised each occasion on which this could have been discussed either to refer it back or forward to some other occasion. We were told when questions of this kind were raised before that when the Bill was introduced we would then hear all about them, but in so far as the Minister did refer on a previous occasion to the necessary and desirable air-raid precautions which he hoped the people would adopt, they were in the nature of shelters of one kind and another, whether over-ground or underground, but preferably underground, the provision of shelters for people, say, where there are a great number of workers, the evacuation of school children, and the decontamination squads on an area basis.

I have read enough of the literature issued by the Department of Defence, and elsewhere, to understand this much: that the operation of any air-raid precaution scheme is on an area basis, and not on a basis of population. The job may be a little bit harder in the event of actual attack where the population is densest, but the machinery to deal with the threat has got to be framed on an area geographical basis, and not on a basis of population. There may be a population of one million in a city covering 10, 15 or 20 square miles. There may be a population of 30,000 in a county covering 30 square miles.

You want as many human beings to co-operate and organise within the scheme for the 30,000 as you do for the 1,000,000. You want your decontamination squads, etc., say, in rural Ireland on a townsland or on a two-townsland basis, just the same as you want a squad or two squads for, say, Merrion Square, Dublin. If the Minister works that out for an average administrative county he will find, without going into extremes at all, the extent of the task that he is imposing on every county council in this country. It will require the same machinery to put out a fire in the country as to put out a fire in the city. There are less facilities in the country, less likelihood of a convenient water supply, and of having a suitable pressure from that water supply.

One would imagine that if we were to take a Bill of this kind seriously that at any time during the course of the two high tension years that we have gone through central funds or central direction at least would have ensured that there were some fire fighting appliances in every administrative county. But nothing was done. After two years of high tension, when everything appears, at least to the ordinary person, and even to the close, keen student of the newspapers, to be easier, we have quite suddenly, without explanation and without any reasons, a Bill of this kind slapped at us. We are told what is in the Bill, but not the reasons for it. Local authorities and their officers are made scheme-making authorities. Officers, irrespective of their contracts, training, experience, or anything else, are to suddenly find themselves serving two masters and two Departments. The officers of every or any county council are to put up a scheme for air raid precautions in their area, say, the County Council of Longford, just the same as the County Council of Dublin. They are to base that scheme on a lack of information more pronounced and more exaggerated than ever was associated with any tuppenny-halfpenny Bill so far brought in here.

Now, most of us are people of common sense. If any man walking the street outside were asked to make a decent effort as an amateur to prepare a scheme for any particular area, one of the first obvious and simple questions he would ask is, from where is the attack to be expected? The first important thing that he must take into consideration is his distance from the starting point of the enemy 'plane. If we are to initiate schemes against the probability or possibility of aerial attack from or by Great Britain, then every point in this country is equally vulnerable and equally reachable. If, on the other hand, we are to expect, to prepare for and provide against attack from the centre of Europe, then the whole picture is altered. Any boy with a map and a compass will kind of circle the probable and possible danger points. He can exclude with the compass— that is, on the assumption that we are to believe the stuff sent out by the Department of Defence—certain areas and zones in the country. They will be excluded from danger.

At the very outset, against which danger—if either—is provision to be made? My attitude to this particular Bill is that it is a Bill which will require and deserve very close study by everybody. It will require particularly close study by the people who are asked to vote the money. It will require full information in the mind of every Deputy in order to justify his action before his own constituents if he supports the Bill. As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly prepared to give this Bill, without opposition, a Second Reading, on the assumption and on the understanding that we will hear a lot more about the Bill, the necessity for the Bill, and the case for the Bill, at a subsequent stage than we have heard at this particular point. I am prompted to take that particular line because of the uneasy feeling that there may be a real danger, that there may be a real necessity for the Bill, and that a case might be made for the Bill if we had somebody else in charge of it. I am giving the person who is in charge of the Bill a further opportunity to make the case that he did not make to-day, and that he did not make on any occasion on which he referred to this particular subject. Even recent events must have convinced the Minister of the truth of the old saying that all the people cannot be fooled all the time. Neither can all the people be taxed, with an increasing degree of severity, all the time. As I said before, the time has gone by when this Parliament or any Deputy in it, irrespective of where he sits, could afford to vote public moneys away lightly without understanding the why or the wherefore. There is a responsibility on each of us to vote money where a sound case is made for the voting of that money, and there is a responsibility on the Minister for Defence and on every other Minister to make that case when he comes to the Dáil asking for money. So far, no case has been made. Patience and consideration are being extended to the Minister when we say that we will allow this Bill, without opposition, to go a stage further, on the clear understanding that on a further stage a reasonable case will be made for the Bill.

Mr. Norton

If this Bill had been introduced in September of last year, or immediately following the crisis which Europe was then undergoing, we might at least understand the atmosphere in which it was being introduced and the mentality of those responsible for piloting it through this House. But when armies were marching across Europe, and when the danger of war was on the lips of everybody, we found no A.R.P. Bill being introduced here; we found no steps being taken to protect the civil population. We found the Department of Defence acting on the Micawber-like system of waiting for something to turn up. Nine months after the crisis of Munich, and at a time when military effervescence in Europe is at least quiescent, we are presented with an A.R.P. Bill, which appears to indicate that, while the Government did not feel it necessary to take such precautions nine months ago, or in the periods of danger which followed Munich, they now find it necessary, in relatively tranquil circumstances, to present the country with a Bill of this kind. The introduction of this Bill is a matter of Government responsibility. It is the Government that brings this Bill to the House, and on the Government rests the special responsibility of justifying, in June, 1939, the introduction of a Bill of this kind, which was not available to the Dáil and not available to the people nine months ago. I can only assume that the introduction of the Bill is a belated recognition by the Government that they believe Ireland will be within the zone of military operations in the next war. The introduction of the Bill itself is a proof of that, and I think everybody will share the complaint which has been voiced by Deputy O'Higgins that, if the Government believes this country is within the zone of military operations which are likely to commence in the centre of Europe or on the fringe of Europe, then we ought to be told definitely what induced the Government to believe that now, and to take those precautions now when apparently they did not believe it nine months ago, and took no precautions nine months ago.

The Minister, in the course of his speech this evening, has directed our attention to the fact that Part I of the Bill deals with certain matters; that Part II deals with other matters; and that Parts III, IV and V deal with a variety of other matters; but that is clearly discernible to anybody who takes the trouble to persue the Bill, and is not in itself a reason for the introduction of the Bill. It is an intimation to the country of what it is proposed to do under the Bill, so far as there is anything definite in the Bill at all; but we have not been told by the Minister in the course of his introductory remarks this evening what is the necessity for this Bill at this stage, nor have we been told in what way it is proposed to protect the civil population in the event of this country being within the zone of possible military operations. So far as the Bill is concerned, it is mainly a machinery Bill. An examination of the sections of the Bill will disclose that, in the main, it is concerned with authorising, the preparation of schemes or giving the Minister power to compel local authorities and others to prepare schemes of air raid precautions; but we are not told what the schemes will be, and we have not had a single intimation as to what steps will be taken by the Minister, armed with the wide powers he will possess when the Bill passes, to protect the civil population in the event of air raids on this country. I think if the Government feels it necessary to introduce this Bill, that we ought to be told in detail why it is being introduced now; why it was not introduced nine months ago; what circumstances demand its introduction to-day that were not present nine months ago.

In any case, we ought to have from the Minister, for the information not only of those on whom the responsibility of passing this Bill will rest, but for the information of every citizen in the country, a comprehensive statement indicating the measures which it will be necessary to take to protect the civil population in the event of war. We must assume that it is intended to protect the civil population. We must assume, too, that the Department of Defence, which is specially charged with the protection of the nation and with safeguarding the lives and property of the people in the event of war, must have given some attention to the detailed measures to be adopted to protect the civil population. One would have imagined that a Department which had that responsibility thrust upon it would, through the mouthpiece of its Minister, avail of this opportunity to take the country into its confidence and to indicate the measures which may be considered necessary to protect the civil population. I keep asking myself on looking at the Bill, and having listened to the Minister's very brief speech, not in justification of it, but in explanation of it, what are the measures to be taken to protect the civil population?

My desire is to endeavour to extract from the Minister, in order to satisfy my own responsibility towards this Bill, and in order that the citizens generally may be aware of what is likely to be thrust upon them in the form of restrictions or of responsibility, what measures exactly the Minister or the Department of Defence intend to take in the matter of protecting the civil population.

If we are assuming that the defence is against air attack, then the two most obvious methods of attack are, (1) a gas attack, and (2) attack by bombing planes. When one thinks of a gas attack one is entitled to know from the Minister what measures he proposes to take to protect the civil population, if he believes that the civil population is in danger from a gas attack. We might ask, for instance, if there are sufficient respirators in the country to issue to the civil population; where are these respirators; can they be purchased privately; are they going to be bought comprehensively by the Department and sold at a nominal cost; are they to be sold at cost price; is the task of obtaining and selling them to be a private commercial deal; or is the Department going to take any steps to ensure that these respirators will be available to citizens at a nominal cost? We are entitled to know, if the Department is going to distribute the respirators, what the cost of these respirators will be. We are entitled to know how poor people who are unable to buy the necessaries of life are to be expected to buy respirators which in time of crisis may well reach excessive prices. We might also ask, if there are respirators available for adults, whether any are available for children, and whether there are people qualified, for instance, to impart training in the use of such respirators for children. These are questions which one must ask in discussing this Bill, because neither in the Bill itself nor in the speech of the Minister is there any indication as to what protection is available, even of the most obvious type, for the civil population in the event of a gas attack.

If you pass on then, and believe that the greatest danger to the civil population is from the high explosive bomb, as many experts in military matters profess to believe, then you are entitled to ask what is the protection against the high explosive bomb. The gas mask is obviously no protection. You have to devise a new type of protection against the high explosive bomb if you believe that the people are in danger of losing their lives or of being maimed by indiscriminate bombing from the air. We are entitled to ask again what are the protective measures to be adopted against that possible danger. We know, of course, of the measures adopted in other countries. We are entitled to ask the Minister, on a Bill of this kind, does he contemplate the provision of shelters and, if so, what type of shelter, who is to provide the shelter, who is to pay for the shelter, and what the cost of the shelter is to be? We have not had a single intimation from the Minister, on a Bill dealing with the necessity for precautions against air raids, of the measures he will take in respect of protection against a gas attack from the air, or protection against the use of the high explosive bomb from the air. It may be, of course, that the Minister does not contemplate the use of shelters. One can hardly imagine that a method of protection adopted in many other countries could have been overlooked by the Department of Defence here.

Again, if the civil population is in danger of attack from the air by the use of high explosive bombs, we ought to know from the Minister what he advises the population to do in the event of an attack of that kind. It is not when the danger is on us that it will be possible to warn the population or to advise them what to do. Advertisements in the newspapers will be of no use once the drums beat for battle. We ought to know from the Minister, who is asking us to pass this Bill, what are his measures of protection under all these heads. In England, of course, we see the garden shelter adopted and pictured in the Press as an example for those who have not provided themselves with such shelters. Is that to be the Minister's method of defence? Does the Minister recommend our people to copy the methods adopted in Great Britain?— because this Bill is very largely copied from the British Bill. If he does, we ought to know whether that is the considered judgment of the Department and whether that is the advice of the Minister to the population as the best means of the protection in the event of attack.

We ought to know, too, what is to be the position, for instance, of persons living in tenement houses and flats. Many of our tenements in the city have no gardens; some of them, in fact, have no back yards, and you cannot put up shelters there. What is to happen to 40 or 50 families living in a tenement house? How are they to be protected? They have no garden; they can erect no shelter. These are very obvious points of attack, because of the density of population in these parts of the city. There is not a single intimation in the Bill as to the Minister's methods of protecting the population living in such circumstances.

Where A.R.P. have been taken in other countries, evacuation of the civil population has formed a substantial portion of the precautionary measures adopted. We have not had a single word from the Minister as to whether he has even contemplated evacuation as a method of defence. We have not had a single word as to whether men, women and children are to stay where they are, or whether they are to leave, how they are to leave, or what they are to do when they leave. There has been no information from the Minister as to what is to happen. We have to wait until the Minister gets authority to make regulations, and then when the Minister makes the regulations and puts the cost of implementing them on the local authorities, we may find ourselves committed to a method of protection which will be inadequate and which we will have no opportunity of reviewing unless we can extract some information from the Minister before the Bill leaves this House. Evacuation has been thought of as a method of mitigating the dangers of aerial attack in other countries. It is recognised to be a very difficult process in countries with better methods of transport and with transport of greater mobility than ours. They recognise that evacuation is a very difficult plan to implement when you think of all the consequences involved.

The plan would probably be more difficult here. In Great Britain they could, perhaps, evacuate a substantial portion of the population from London, and could house them under civilised conditions in places like Manchester or Glasgow. Could we do anything like that here? If you evacuate a substantial portion of the population of Dublin temporarily to, say, Galway you have a food supply problem in Galway at once. You have also a school problem, a sanitation problem, a hospital problem, and many other problems to face if you transport a large number of people from one place to another place that is not prepared to receive them. Not a single one of these matters has been adverted to by the Minister or touched upon by him to-night. The House was merely told what was in the Bill, and asked to pass it. The most striking part of the Bill is the obligation it puts upon local authorities. We were told that there is power to reimburse local authorities up to 70 per cent. for air raid precautions. But the 70 per cent. might be a 100 per cent. when the phraseology says "up to 70 per cent." It does not matter whether it is 70 per cent. or 100 per cent. is in the Bill. If you substitute 100 per cent. for 70 per cent. the local authorities may only get 10 per cent. as they will never know what their liability is under a Bill of this kind.

The Minister is armed with powers compelling them to adopt a scheme, and to finance it, he being the judge afterwards as to the amount that will be refunded to local authorities. Many local authorities are already in serious financial difficulty. The Minister may have in mind a very elaborate and complicated scheme of protection against air raids. The bigger the scheme the more comprehensive it will be, and the more the expenditure of local authorities will be. Surely local authorities which have to raise money from poor ratepayers, because every person living in artisans' dwellings or labourers' cottages will be compelled to pay for these air raid precaution schemes, are entitled to know on what scale the precautionary measures will be carried on, and what they are likely to have to pay when raising money to finance these schemes. They are entitled to know whether up to the 70 per cent. to be reimbursed will mean 70 per cent. or whether it will be nearer 100 per cent. than 70 per cent. I think the Minister has treated the House unfairly by the inadequate details he gave on the Bill. I do not think the Bill gives the House or the country a picture of the measures to be taken or the cost involved. The Minister has asked the House to give him a blank cheque to carry out air raid precautions. We have not been told what type of air raid precautions will be taken. Even in a general way we were not told what the financial calculations are in respect to the provisions of the scheme. It is not fair to the House, and is not fair to the country that they should receive such little information from the Minister.

The Department of Defence is an important Department, and is entitled to reasonable facilities in a time of crisis, but it should not be allowed to get into the position of being entitled to come to the House and say: "Vote money for schemes of this kind. We will carry them out and apportion the financial costs when they are completed." This Parliament exercises control over expenditure, and it is entitled to know from the Minister what cheque it is being asked to sign when it passes this Bill, and it is also entitled to know on what schemes of precaution the money is going to be spent. We have had no such intimation from the Minister under either heading. I take the view that the Minister wants to get his Bill without opposition. If he wants co-operation in the matter of protecting the civil population against the possibility of air attack he should open his mind more fully to the House and inform it and the country of the necessity for the Bill, the type of precautions that will be adopted; and the total cost which local authorities are likely to have to meet when a Bill of this kind is passed.

Mr. Benson

I do not propose to claborate on the manner in which the Minister introduced the Bill. That matter has been pretty well covered by previous speakers. On the First Reading the point that struck me forcibly was that the drafting of the Bill was rather that of a measure to last for a short time in an emergency. I do not think it can be seriously so regarded by the Minister. I take it that he looks upon it as a piece of legislation which is to go on the Statute Book and remain there, at all events, for some years. If it were merely for a temporary emergency I do not think there could be very much said against the Bill, but if it is to be regarded as a permanent measure, then I consider it is too wide and too drastic. It is too wide in those clauses under which the county councils are to become scheme-making local authorities. In passing I should like to lodge an objection to the term "scheme-making." That sounds to me to be too near scheming. No one will suggest that it is necessary for counties on the Western seaboard, or perhaps some of the North-Western counties, to consider any form of air raid precautions. The points that are likely to be attacked are Dublin, Cork, possibly Limerick, and, vaguely, possibly Galway. I think by the time these have been dealt with there may be a necessity for further legislation. Under the Bill every county council has to prepare a scheme, but, as has been pointed out, there is no indication given as to the extent of that scheme. The Minister referred to a nucleus of a scheme. What exactly that means I do not know.

As regards the drastic portion of the Bill, there are two points to which I might call attention. The first concerns the acquisition of land, and the other the power to dissolve local authorities. I think there are drastic powers in the Bill for the acquisition of land, unless there is necessity for these powers to be granted so that a particular job could go ahead rapidly. The Minister did not explain in his opening remarks why there should be power under the Bill for the Minister for Defence, admittedly in consultation with the Minister for Local Government, to dissolve a local authority which, I believe, the Minister for Local Government could not dissolve without a public inquiry. Deputy O'Higgins referred to the distinction between taxpayer and ratepayer. On a previous occasion I suggested to the Minister, and I echo it now, that this should not be a local charge at all. In my view only small portions of the country require any precautions to be taken but, at the same time, precautions in particular areas are necessary for the benefit of the country at large. Therefore, I say that the country at large should pay, and not particular local areas, as is proposed in the Bill. As Deputy Norton pointed out, it is impossible to say how much local authorities will have to pay. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the whole charge falling on local authorities. Part IV requires, amongst other things, that occupiers and owners of factories shall make provision forthwith for the obscuration of lights. I calculated that the windows in our premises would require 200 yards of material for obscuration purposes, and when I proceeded to make inquiries for the acquisition of the necessary material, I found that none was available in Dublin, so that it seems difficult to carry out forthwith such precautions as are laid down in the Bill.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 7 Jun 1939

Air Raid Precautions Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1939